What's new

Is Obama's drone doctrine counter-productive?

The US is making its best in a very difficult situation. All the terror attacks I mentioned used Pakistan territory to transfer the terrorists, the funds and the arms to execute them, so Pakistan is indeed the problem. Apart from NWA Pakistan has apparently a problem to control Punjab where other terror organisations are located (such as LET and HUM) and operate freely from well known centres. In Quetta the capital of Baluchistan the commend of the Taliban is located and no one does anything - apparently Pakistan's control is limited to several districts of Islamabad...
We are jailing and catching everybody who is involved in such activities, obviously I'm standing here, not arguing FOR terrorists, I'm arguing for Pakistanis, they are as much an enemy to me as much they are to you. There is no bombing in our areas, and hence the situation is in control to go ahead and make arrests.

And of course in NWA Pakistan Army refuse again and again to take the necessary actions and clear NW from all terrorists operating from its territory against NATO in Afghanistan. The Army also fail to control this tribal areas is supposedly control - no weapon is being collected no training facilities are demolished, and no recruitment techniques are being banned.

Actually read the exact statements - we are unable to do an operation there because we have to do ops in SWA - where the opposite is happening, the terrorists come from Afghanistan to attack us - what about Nato's own HN?

Hence, the US has no choice but to strike in Pakistan and do the job Pakistan is unable/unwilling to do.
But its not doing anyone's job this has been proven by the statements of three dozen aides of the white house that he is just firing randomly or profiling based on an age group.

The radicalisation of the People of Pakistan and NWA has nothing to do with the US, but with your own military and government authorities which sell them all kind of foolish stories why their country is in its bad situation, and that that situation is always the fault of external forces (mainly the US) and never Pakistan itself.

There's a difference, being anti-American is not radicalization. We can also just be anti-American and speak up against American policies, it doesn't mean we will join terror organizations and become the enemy we aspire to defeat.

The rhetoric is pure nonsense and one that has been packaged and sold to foreign nations like yours. You should not allow yourself to be taken for a ride.
 
US President Barack Obama personally approves every single drone strike against suspected terrorists, so he can take full moral responsibility for the deaths these cause.

That is the main thrust of a long, detailed and fascinating piece in the New York Times.

It comes as experts have been telling me that the president is wrong to see drones as a "silver bullet" that solves some critical problems about the morality and efficacy of America's use of military power.

The New York Times paints a picture of a regular, 100-strong video conference meeting that decides the names to be put on a "kill list": the next suspected terrorists to be targeted.

It quotes the president's national security adviser, Tom Donilon: "He is determined that he will make these decisions about how far and wide these operations will go… he's determined to keep the tether pretty short."

White House spokesman Jay Carney says he will not discuss specific details of decision-making.

The article confirms that the care taken by the president is significant and he takes "extraordinary measures" to avoid civilian casualties.

Obama's drone doctrine


In reality, I cannot believe that as many officials spoke as freely as they apparently did without being given the presidential green light.

At a time when Republicans want to paint Mr Obama as a ditherer, unwilling to take firm action, it paints him as tough and strong, willing to take hard decisions and kill America's enemies.

But this goes beyond political spin. It is a doctrine of warfare.

We have known for a while that drones are the president's weapon of choice.

He believes that they kill America's enemies with minimum risk to the innocent and are a "light foot-print" compared to the heavy boot of invasion and occupation. The Obama administration is becoming more and more frank about the use of these unmanned planes.

Some are appalled.

There are plenty of blogs which say that drone attacks are murder, plain and simple. Others argue that they are illegal under international law.

But some say they simply do not have the desired result. Gregory Johnsen of Princeton University is an expert on Yemen and he told me that the rain of drone attacks has strengthened the hand of terrorists there.

"Look at Yemen on Christmas Day 2009, the day the so-called underwear bomber attempted to bring down a flight over Detroit.

"On that day al-Qaeda numbered about 200 to 300 individuals and they controlled no territory. Now today, two-and-a-half years later, despite all the drone strikes al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has tripled in size, it's now around 1,000 members and it controls significant territory.

"The more the US bombs, the more they grow."

No 'silver bullet'


He says drones strikes have killed women and children and al-Qaeda are adept at using this to recruit people for revenge.

Someone else who questions the light foot-print theory is David Rhode. He speaks form very personal experience. While a New York Times reporter, he was held hostage in the tribal areas of Pakistan by the Taliban. He recalled to me one attack.

"There was one drone strike close to the house where we were being held. It was so close that shrapnel and mud showered down into the courtyard.

"Just the force and size of the explosion amazed me. It comes with no warning and tremendous force."

He says that is not a light foot-print.

"They are a constant presence, you hear them circling over head the whole time.

"It's terrifying for everyone on the ground because they can hear it, like a small plane. What is so unsettling is you have no idea when this missile is going to come and kill you. There's a sense that your sovereignty is being violated.

"… It's a serious military action. It is not this light precise pin prick that many Americans believe."

Gregory Johnson says politicians can become mesmerised by this one tactic.

"The problem with drones is there is almost a seduction of simple solutions going on here. It is like a 'silver bullet', a magic missile solution to al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and I think that's very dangerous.

"What needs to happen is that the US has to do the very hard policy of diplomacy, or intelligence on the ground. The United States has a huge tool box at its disposal in Yemen and it is only using one of these tools."

I suspect the sci-fi allure of bringing retribution from the skies, with no risk to any American lives, will out-weigh such considerations.

The president may think very carefully before he approves individual killings, but in the end, as a strategy, drone attacks have too many attractions compared to doing nothing or sending in the troops.

BBC News - Is Obama's drone doctrine counter-productive?

I suggest reading some of the comments - and viewing the overwhelming condemnation of these drone attacks....


We have terrorist in one area, they country who controls it says that we cannot conduct CI operations due to bandwidth issues. They do not allow NATO to help. What is the option left? The only option to drone strike is operation on the ground, trust me if you honestly start doing the operation. The drone strikes will stop automatically.

Every day the Taliban grows stronger in Afghanistan carrying out more and more brazen attack.

That's what I'm telling you there are no mechanisms in place to 'detect' a terrorist. There is no terrorist-o-meter out there. They are firing bombs onto people for doing early morning exercises in a group or for driving bumper to bumper, if you have a wedding ceremony your wedding may be bombed.

This is according to three dozen current and former white house aides.



Then, I ask you the same question again:

So Pakistan is unable to do a very difficult task - a task the US has not done so far either - then that means that you can start bombing random civilians?

US only has responsibility for controlling united states and I have heard no terrorist safe haven here.
 
That is not what the article say or give any evidence for. Of course every drone attack is supported with intelligence and is aimed at terror activists, not civilians. The President himself authorising this operation in order to minimise as much as possible the chances of a mistake and innocent casualties.

No this is exactly what the NY Times article. More info is in these threads, you can verify with the source articles.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/war-ag...suspicious-behavior-not-act-intelligence.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/war-ag...-drone-campaign-fuelling-terror-guardian.html

Everything I have said is 100% true.

US only has responsibility for controlling united states and I have heard no terrorist safe haven here.

What are the 130,000 troops doing in Afghanistan? The point is 130,000 of their troops can't do the same job they are revenge killing us for.
 
As long as Pakistan is unable/unwilling to do the right thing and eliminate global terrorism in its territory, the US has no other choice but to operate against terror targets inside Pakistan.

Doesnt matter how bad these drone strikes look now, it has created a resolve in pakistani forces and nation to stop it by force. U.S. bullyness has helped us in the past and it will help us more in the future. Their sanctions didnt stop us from becoming nuclear and it is in the US interest to stop these drones and stop pushing us against the wall, you can only humiliates a nation so much. will they keep killing till everyone is dead in tribal areas because according to them everyone in tribal areas is a terrorist.

I expect Pakistan will stop these drone attacks by force within 5 years and US will not dare do anything about it.
 
We have terrorist in one area, they country who controls it says that we cannot conduct CI operations due to bandwidth issues. They do not allow NATO to help. What is the option left? The only option to drone strike is operation on the ground, trust me if you honestly start doing the operation. The drone strikes will stop automatically.

Dude.. Its all Pakistani Army's smoke screen. The base truth is following..

Pakistan army cultivated Taliban to ensure strategic depth in Afghanistan. Hence they wont go after them at any cost. Pakistani army neither has the means nor the guts to go up against USA and hence they can not stop the drone attacks that are being used by Americans to weed out Taliban from out of safe havens in Paksitan. So all Pakistan can do is to use the civilian deaths as a moral ground to try and spare as much time to its strategic assets.. And thats what it is doing.. Asim is simply contributing to that..
 
Dude.. Its all Pakistani Army's smoke screen. The base truth is following..

Pakistan army cultivated Taliban to ensure strategic depth in Afghanistan. Hence they wont go after them at any cost. Pakistani army neither has the means nor the guts to go up against USA and hence they can not stop the drone attacks that are being used by Americans to weed out Taliban from out of safe havens in Paksitan. So all Pakistan can do is to use the civilian deaths as a moral ground to try and spare as much time to its strategic assets.. And thats what it is doing.. Asim is simply contributing to that..

Do you think I do not know?
 
Asim, you do realise that you're training your guns on the wrong man.

Why don't you organise a protest in front of GHQ in Pindi? Let's see how many of your countrymen support you.
 
Why does Pakistan simply not say NO?

It's been said over and over, whatever their reasons they are criminally guilty of not stopping these attacks by force.

They = Pakistan government. The Pakistani people overwhelmingly are against these drones.

Asim, you do realise that you're training your guns on the wrong man.

Why don't you organise a protest in front of GHQ in Pindi? Let's see how many of your countrymen support you.

Use some common sense, we did protest when Musharraf was in charge - however now that a civilian government is in charge, Kayani can simply say I got orders to follow. Then? Protest over?
 
Of course it is- for every sUccesful strike against a terrorist there are 3/4 failed ones that kill civilians. The strikes are actually making the entire situation worse as they are filling the ranks at the lower end. Targeted assassinations with SOFs would be more prkductive but riskier for the guys in the ground.
 
No this is exactly what the NY Times article. More info is in these threads, you can verify with the source articles.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/war-ag...suspicious-behavior-not-act-intelligence.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/war-ag...-drone-campaign-fuelling-terror-guardian.html

Everything I have said is 100% true.



What are the 130,000 troops doing in Afghanistan? The point is 130,000 of their troops can't do the same job they are revenge killing us for.

Not their country and not same as your case.
a) You have home advantage, language, supply and other stuff.
b) You have public support where they are foreigners, way different to work in home country than foreign country.
c) You had the opportunity to control it, you never cared to control some of your land.
 
It's been said over and over, whatever their reasons they are criminally guilty of not stopping these attacks by force.

They = Pakistan government. The Pakistani people overwhelmingly are against these drones.

What about your Army?

Historically, they have been pretty autonomous when they wanted to be.
 
Use some common sense, we did protest when Musharraf was in charge - however now that a civilian government is in charge, Kayani can simply say I got orders to follow. Then? Protest over?

Don't be a simpleton, Asim. You know how things roll in Pakistan and GHQ, don't you?

Uncle Kayani sure must be smiling at your naivete.
 
It's been said over and over, whatever their reasons they are criminally guilty of not stopping these attacks by force.

They = Pakistan government. The Pakistani people overwhelmingly are against these drones.



Use some common sense, we did protest when Musharraf was in charge - however now that a civilian government is in charge, Kayani can simply say I got orders to follow. Then? Protest over?

Did you forgot what was said in wikileaks, we will protest in public but ok privately.

Also if you were against it, care to explain why you had given them air base to launch drone and was providing intelligence. Only after May 2 you asked them to leave.

So something you do not want them to do, you provide airbase and intelligence, Yes it makes sense.
 
Maybe if the US stops 200 people roaming in Afghanistan and bomb those sc*m to bits, that would be alot better than doing these strikes in Pakistan.

The common excuse is that they originate from Pakistan. Fair enough. But what about the fact that they stroll through 200 km into Kabul and launch an attack there. Isn't that somebody's responsibility too? To secure their side of the border? Or is that Pakistans fault as well?
 
Back
Top Bottom